Talk:Friends of Science

FoS statement

I have some trouble with the statement.

Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

Of course, 3 decades of satellite data cannot show a "change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures", as three decades is to short for any long-term analysis. However, it can show a change in the temperature. It can show an increase in temperature (or a lack of the same). But what is a "no change in the rate of increase of temperature"? Are they claiming it getting warmer at a constant rate?

I suspect they want(ed) to claim that the satellite temperature record shows no increase in temperature (it does, but some early interpretations failed to show this, as they failed to account for orbital decay and other problems).

But given that parts of the statement are, read literally, nonsensical: Do we report what they say or what they try to say? --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally added it, with This statement is curious, because the temperature trend clearly has changed over the last 3 decades, compared to, say, the two previous decades.. I think I'll restore that William M. Connolley 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion on what is the most common interpretations of the temperature records belongs to pages such as satellite temperature record and such. This page remains neutral by focusing on what FoS says without supporting or criticizing it. --Childhood's End 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No: wiki is not a free platform for (in my view, nutters like) FoS statements. If they say something, then its fair to comment on it. The current wording is imperfect, but will do for me William M. Connolley 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if you're interested in the prehistory of all this, the FoS current statement (which as Stephan says is nearly incomprehensible) didn't originally say that. They had: Temperatures have increased around built-up areas ("heat islands"), but satellite, balloon and long term mountain top observations have observed no increase at all. [1]. Of course it wasn't true in march 2005 - see the sat rec page (and wasn't true re the urban/rural stuff either - see the UHI page for refs) - and sometime after that they must have realised it was unsupportable and replaced it with something incoherent instead. Which is also insupportable, of course, but less obviously so William M. Connolley 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Childhoodsend, "This page remains neutral by focusing on what FoS says without supporting or criticizing it." We need to express the views of the FoS, not those of others. Tynedanu 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Friends of Science Church makes public assertions about their behavior which do not match their behavior; it indeed therefore proper to write ".. they have stated...." and "... they have claimed..." when writing about the cult, not about the science. As for satellite data, the data are not temperature records: they are used to run computer models that produce a temperature trend, with high error bars. The latest models that use satellite data show a sharp increase in clobal average upper troposphere temperature on par with land-based instrumentation. Desertphile (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

FoS Goals

Do you think that this sums up the goals of the FoS? "Friends of Science aims to assist the Canadian Government in examining the science and data behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the Global Warming debate." Tynedanu 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is at best their claimed goal. See WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves for why it is not a good idea to report their claims without qualification ("According to the FOS website [proper ref here], ..."). --Stephan Schulz 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You were right and I changed the goal to quote their web site, and added a link. Sorry about that, I'm just a newbie! Tynedanu 14:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing accusation

I tagged the reference to the claim that "FoS has been criticised as an act of Astroturfing with close links to the oil industry". The reference leads to a blog, which does not seem to meet Wikipedia strict standards about such sources. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources :

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Now, Stephan Shultz, a known climate change believer, has removed this tag twice, the last time on the ground that "The blog article is the claim".

Now, if we are to allow such claims that circulate on blogs all over the internet, everything on Wikipedia will be criticized.

The Astroturf accusation sould be removed unless properly sourced. Please give feedbacks. --Childhood's End 21:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cited the Toronto Star. But in relation to criticism, I think Stephan has a point. The fact that an organization has been criticised in a blog is proved by reference to the blog. The question is not one of verifiability but notability, and some blogs are now notable sources. Note that in this case, all the Star writer did was lend his imprimatur to criticisms first made on a blog. JQ 20:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While the Toronto Star is almost printed by the Liberal Party of Canada, which signed Canada into Kyoto, that's already a more acceptable source. But I think that to be used as a source, the article must go farther than only cite the blog without endorsing or even commenting the blog's statement. From what I see, the Star's article only indicates that a blog said that, which does not help for the verifiability of the claim made by the blog.

I agree that a few blogs may become notable sources over time, but they're usually biaised for one side or the other. Verifiability is even more important then. Desmogblog has an open biaised view and cannot be an adequate source, unless its claims can be verified.

Also, I must disagree that the fact that an organization has been criticized in a blog deserves by itself an encyclopedic mention. As I said, if we were to add in Wiki all the criticism about everything that can be found in blogs just to indicate that this or that has been criticized, the relevant information would be drown into criticism from anyone's blog.

The Astroturf claim by Desmogblog has not been shown to be verifiable so far. I guess they got the information from somewhere and did not only throw that in the air? Let's find something solid about this claim before integrating it into the article. I'll tag it for some time while research is made. --Childhood's End 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not that they astroturf, the claim is that they are criticised for astroturfing. Notability of the criticism is a valid question. However, I agree with User:John Quiggin that some blogs are notable, and in particular that DeSmogBlog is. Google has 19300 hits on it, and there are 7 current articles on Google News.--Stephan Schulz 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, JunkScience is also notable. Should we add all the claims they make about global warming? And that's just one example... --Childhood's End 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, as I feel it adds nothing of value. But properly attributed you could add it e.g. to global warming controversy. "Junk science web site Junk Science claims..." --Stephan Schulz 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You know just as I do that it would be erased. --Childhood's End 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are now peer-reviewed journal articles that classify FoS as an astroturf organization. These include an extensive discussion on an investigation of FoS funding. Greenberg, J., Knight, G., & Westersund, E. (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 65-82. and Elshof, L. (2010). Transcending the age of stupid: Learning to imagine ourselves differently. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 232-243.ML Martens

Criticism of FoS

Obviously, this article should be renamed "Criticism of Friends of Science", as it now contains more stuff about criticizing it than describing it. Or should we add information about the claims made by FoS so that it becomes a bit more relevant to spend as much space on one single statement that they made? --Childhood's End 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it contains nothing criticizing it ... in fact it's a blatant white wash, omitting the fact that virtually every claim by FoS is scientifically invalid or misleading. -- Jibal (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Innapropriate Synthesis

I undid UbER's edit removing the large section of the Criticism section. I would like UbER or anyone else to please discuss and explain why this is Inappropriate Synthesis and then, when their point has been proven and a consensus reached, redo the edit. I will continue to undo the edit and keep the article in its current state if it is not discussed. JoeyETS 22:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be consensus to remove blatant disregard for policy. I think the the policy is rather clear by itself. You can't combine two separate ideas to make a third and original one. Quite simple. ~ UBeR 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but I can see UbER's point: the Scientific criticism section is basically original research. I think the best approach for the article would be to find other published critisms of FOS, and quote and/or cite them in the section on Scientific Criticism. In the meantime, having said that, if the choice is between the article containing some fully referenced original research on the one hand, or lacking any mention of the scientific criticism of FOS on the other hand, I'd argue that the article is better off with the original research. So for now I agree with JoeyETS that the section should stay, but I hope someone will update the page with some non-OR criticism of FOS soon. Yilloslime 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'm not inherently opposed to the section being removed, I just want to make sure it's not being removed because of bias. Bias from both sides of the Global Warming debate is ever-present in edits of this article, so I'm over-cautious. I see UbER's point, he's quite right, but I agree with Yilloslime that it should stay in until a proper source for scientific criticism.JoeyETS 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If UBeR is right, there is no reason to keep this section until something that respects WP policies has been proposed. You cannot have something stay if it violates WP policies because you think that some criticism against the subject is in order. Actually, this page is about FoS, not about global warming controversy, and it can live without any criticism. If you add any, it must comply with the policies. Removal is in order. --Childhood's End 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a choice between violating one of two policies: Original Research and Neutral Point of View. What about putting the Original Research warning box at the top of the article? This article now contains no criticism section, so I believe that it is biased in its point of view. When choosing the lesser of two evils, does anyone else agree that inappropriate synthesis is favorable to bias? JoeyETS 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest that an article about an org. can only be neutral if it includes some criticism? Remember that this article is about Friends of Science, not about global warming controversy. Criticism can be added if it complies with content policies, just like for any other article. --Childhood's End 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

While its ridiculous to suggest that every article about an organization needs a criticism section to have NPOV (and i don't think this what JoeyETS is saying), it's even more ridiculous to suggest that an article about a highly controversial group like FoS could be NPOV without a criticisim section. As an extreme example, it would be absurd to write an entry for the Aryan Nation that only included info from their official publications about themselves, and excluded all criticism of the group by others.Yilloslime 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An organization like FoS exists per se and can be neutrally described for what it is without adding any criticism and by leaving the reader reach his own conclusions. This is not to say that the description should be left to the organization itself - quite the contrary, the description itself should be neutral. But while criticism can be relevant information, it is not necessary. And even if it was, it would not mean that invalid/fraudulent criticism should be allowed only for the sake of adding criticism. --Childhood's End 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Three points in repsonse to Childhood's End: 1. An uncritical description of FoS or most any controversial group is inherently biased toward that group's POV. 2. The criticism under debate is not "invalid/fraudulent" as you describe. The issue is it's the criticism of a wikipedia editor, not an outside source. 3. Though the disputed material violates WP:SYN, I'd like to also point everyone's attention to WP:IAR which I would argue applies here. Of course, we could have our cake and eat it too, if someone would find a published criticism of FoS that says essentially what the OR says. Yilloslime 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers not to have blatant "criticism" section, per se, but rather integrated material that allows the reader come to their own conclusions. As I have stated before, value statements should be reserved for the reader, not the writer. That is true NPOV. But the bottom line is that if there's something negative to say about the FoS, then chances are someone has. ~ UBeR 19:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you start with the assumption that FoS is controversial by its very existence and cannot be described neutrally without a criticism section. Now that is POV. A neutral description is neutral, period. Criticism can be relevant or useful info, but is not necessary. And even if it was, it would not mean that any criticism should be allowed only for the sake of adding criticism.

Besides, rules exist for a good reason, and you can certainly find some valid criticism allowed by WP rules if FoS is so obviously controversial no? --Childhood's End 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I reinserted the claims made by FoS, with links to the articles that show they are false, but without any refutation in the text. I suppose that's the way the rules say we should do it, though it makes for a rather whack-a-mole approach to front groups like this, that reappear every few years under different names, making the same bogus claims.JQ 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well they got the temperature range correct. Whether they want to call that significant or not is up to them. Not sure on the distribution of measuring centers, but the UHI effect is mostly negligible, which is what I think the article states. ~ UBeR 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess a charitable parsing of their claim would be "ground stations show warming, satellite stations show much the same warming, but we at FoS define "significant' in such a way as to say they are both insignificant, and we also thought we'd mention the urban heat island problem even though it's long been known to be an order of magnitude less significant than the things we've just dismissed." Exactly how someone who doesn't already know the truth could extract that from their statement I don't know, but uncertainty, doubt and confusion are the products being pushed by FOS and similar after all.JQ 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Neutral

I find that this article is not neutral. It's ridden with criticism. I agree with Childhoodsend, the article should be titled Criticisms of FoS in it's current form. I think that there should be a separate subheading for criticism, but please, let's try to keep the body of the article unbiased. Tynedanu 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out specific instances of bias so that they can be easily removed? Also, there was a debate about this above in which the criticism section was removed because it made the article biased, I have a feeling there might be another debate arising.

There's two ways we can do this. We can either have a basic description of the organization, stating only facts and giving no praise or criticism. This would be the most unbiased, but would not accurately portray the controversy of the issue FoS is involved in. Also, this would result in the article being even smaller than it already is.

The second approach is to give it two balanced sections, one with praise/evidence for and one with criticism/evidence against. This will be harder to keep unbiased, but if done right I think produces the best article. I prefer this option, but would like to know what other users think. JoeyETS 06:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now as it stands the article has nothing to do with the Friends of science and more to do with unsubstantiated criticism therof. Do you really think you would see an entry like this in a real encyclopedia? I doubt it. The section on funding is entirely irrelevant and outright slanderous. The evidence for some collusion with oil companies is non existent and links to some guys biased blog as some sort of evidence. The reality on funding is that FOS receives its donations from individual people and only once received money from Talisman to produce a video. http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2245155

In any event the funding for a non-profit group does not require disclosure by Canadian tax law so why is it discussed here? If they we're a charitable organization fine, but the whole section on funding should go or actually have some evidence of being funded by oil comanies.

Lets get real for a moment and just say what they are about and leave it at that. If you disagree with them or their statements vote accordingly or write a letter to the editor. (Cam MacKay (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Not only that,(although I whole heartedly agree with you Cam MacKay) but just who are the "critics" honestly a blanket "critics" of any organization is not allowed in any other business' or organization's Wiki page, why is it allowed here? As a matter of fact is a critic even able to be mentioned in any other organizations Wiki? (Outside of the global warming associated Wiki)Is Wikipedia in the business of being an objective encyclopedia or a nonobjective publication? It would seem in most cases it is indeed objective but when it comes to Organizations and Businesses associated with Global Warming issues, there is always a critics statement that is given equal space! --75.17.215.115 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC) J. Scott

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking

Why the heavy-handed attempts to link this group to the oil and gas industry? It makes the article nothing but a WP:COATRACK. Some of the sources used are obviously biased and highly questionable. Worse, even if we accept their statements at face value, the entire organization's funding is a trifle (under $100K/annually), and its unclear if even a non-negligible percentage of that comes from energy firms. Innuendo implifying conflict of interest here seems highly farfetched.

Further, there's the issue of undue weight, when a brief article about an organization is overpowered by focusing on funding allegations. FellGleaming (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have comments on this section before I delete it? FellGleaming (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The funding bit is important and relevant. LEave it in. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits...

• This editcomment and change is incomprehensive - since both references given for that cite, use the word Astroturfing about the Friends. So it is definitively in the source.
• This is POV - we have no idea whether they "critically examine" or not. They certainly assert that they do - but quite alot disagree.
• This is an apparent misunderstanding. The original text stated that the film claims to "shows contrast" (which is correct - go watch it. It puts up various statements to show that contrast). It got changed into "that contrasts with" which is something entirely different - and which may be correct to some extent - but isn't a description of the film.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(a) I read the story in TheStar; it never directly calls FoS an astroturf group. The blog entry of Veale's does. I'm ok with reinserting it, but given it is commentary, I believe we need to label just who is levelling the accusation, rather than a "critics" weasel-word. OK with you? FellGleaming (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(b) Would you consider "examines" to be neutral, rather than "critically examines"? I wouldn't think anyone would disagree that FoS is critical of Kyoto.

(c) That edit should have been "that contrasts the views of". A spurious "with" got inserted; my apologies. FellGleaming (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

a) Critics is better i think. I think that there is a very good chance that most critics consider them an Astroturf group.

We can't insert text on "very good chances". It has to be verifiable. FellGleaming (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Critics is unspecific and it is entirely correct. It doesn't state "all", "most", "some" or any other figure. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are 3 reliable sources[2][3][4] for stating that FoS is an astroturf group. So i will stick with the "Critics say...", since i consider these 3 sources critics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

b) Nope. When we are talking about an advocacy organization which is commonly considered astroturfers - then it is more likely that they display their bias, than that they "examine" or "critically examine". Stick to the non-value laden wording.

You're debating semantics here. They're certainly "examining" the evidence, whether or not you believe they're doing so objectively is another issue. FellGleaming (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

Yes of course i'm debating semantics. Its text about something - so correct semantics is essential. Non-value laden wording is the correct way to go. I'm OK with the disputing change, which is correct no matter what. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I changed it to "disputes". There's no question they're disputing Kyoto and CAGW. FellGleaming (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

c) I like the original better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

There seems to be some effort to debate global warming within the lede of the article. While some measure of this is useful within the article itself, a simple statement of the groups's view is encyclopedic and useful here. FellGleaming (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Advisory board

FOS say We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. [5] but this appears to be a porky [6]. Should we mention this? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate graph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

The graph shown at right does not seem to be from the FoS website, and AFAICS does not represent any data on that site. Additionally, the trend lines placed on this image are misleading in nature as they span two distict epochs with differing rates of change. The image's own wiki entry containg links to two other images of temperature graphs, neither of which seem to agree with the generally accepted findings of HadCRUT, BEST, GISS etc that aggregate land and ocean surface temperatures have not significantly increased since 2001. This arises mainly because these graphs are out of date, showing data to only 2000 or 2005, and that five year averages have been applied which effectively shorten the series still further.

In summary, this image neither represents the opinions of the FoS site, nor does it represent the mainstream consensus of understanding of global temperatures, as of 2014.

I would suggest replacing this image with GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg

I also suggest that the other outdated and therefore misleading graphs be either updated, or deleted.

Owing to controversy flag I have not performed this edit, but leave it up to admins to decide. --Anteaus (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, I am the Communications Manager of Friends of Science Society and new at Wikipedian-ing - so please bear with me if I make mistakes. I have already made a couple. I am identifying my position right off the top in light of the COI policy, and I have opened a new account as advised (that is not as 'corporate') and I will be writing/contributing to other articles of interest.

I appreciate that the Wiki policy is to edit controversial topics like climate change from the mainstream point of view. None-the-less, I hope you will review the codes of conduct/principles of two major science organizations which refer 'hard-nosed skepticism' as an essential part of scientific inquiry. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=1 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=24 http://archives.aaas.org/docs/1975-ScientificFreedomResponsibility.pdf

The present content on the Friends of Science Society wiki page is not reflective of the group's activities or purpose, or the level of scientific review. The point here is that Friends of Science is not a group of tin-foil hatted contrarians, but people of substantial scientific background. This is not reflected on the present page. I propose some material - rewrite at will.

Suggestions: 1. The present article states Friends of Science Society is a non-profit advocacy group.

Proposed (to this effect): Friends of Science Society is a non-profit society engaged in climate change literature review, research and commentary on climate and energy policies, and general education on the diverse factors affecting climate change. The group advocates for the impact of solar variability on climate change. This is contrary to the established mainstream scientific position on the subject and the generally accepted view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

(Note: Friends of Science Society does exactly the same kind of thing the IPCC does - no original research, but a review of peer-reviewed and academic literature)

2. The present article does not say that the founders and many members are actual scientists or working with physical science principles. By stating only that the group is an 'advocacy' group as presently stated, this makes it sound like a fringe or fake group with no relevant knowledge.

Proposed: The core board and founding members are earth and atmospheric scientists, solar physicists and engineers, as are many of the members. Friends of Science Society holds the position that ‘the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change’ and though humans have an impact, in their view it is nominal compared to that of natural forces.

3. The article lacks references to what the group does do.

Proposed: Friends of Science Society does not do original research. Rather, like the IPCC, the society does literature review, issuing commentaries and reports reflecting the group’s perspective. Most of these are published on their website, through PRWeb or Troy Media. Friends of Science Society also hosts expert guest speakers on various topics of climate science, climate policy or related economics. The events are video-taped and available for viewing online. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=308)

Friends of Science also issues a quarterly newsletter, bi-weekly “Friends of Science Extracts” reviewing global news on climate policy and energy, and “Cli-Sci” a review of climate change science news and academic papers.

4.In the opening section of the present article, there is no reference to the early published debate between Pembina Institute and Friends of Science Society advisers and member which was published in the APEGA Journal "The Pegg" in Nov. 2002. This is relevant because Friends of Science made a scientific argument while Pembina Institute relied upon Kyoto. Friends of Science Society opposed Kyoto on grounds of scientific uncertainty, the scientific evidence that the Friends say supports the solar-impact view, and the potential economic burden.

Proposed (to follow from existing sentence): [EXISTING SENTENCE;The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3]....]

In November 2002, a debate on the topic of Kyoto was published in The Pegg, the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Arguing for Kyoto were two members of the Pembina Institute; arguing that the sun is the driver of climate change were Friends of Science Society’s scientific advisers Dr. Sallie Baliunas, and Dr. Tim Patterson along with Friends of Science member Allan MacRae, P. Eng.

5. Corrections - Sallie Baliunas is not a scientific adviser to Friends of Science; Douglas Leahy is not the President.

6. Lack of material related to valid, international research on the impact of solar variability on climate change.

Proposed:

Scientists Supporting Solar-Climate Link

Scientists in the field of solar physics whose work Friends of Science Society follows and reviews include: Nir Shaviv (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel), Henrik Svensmark (National Space Institute, Danish Technical University, Denmark http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/Research/Climate_and_Environment ), Willie Soon (United States), Khabibullov Abdussamatov (Astrophysicist and head of space research at the Pulkovo Observatory, Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov ), Silvia Duhau (Argentina), Ivanka Charvatova (Czech Rep.), Hans Jelbring (Sweden), Nils-Axel Mörner (Sweden), Nicola Scafetta (U.S.A.), Ilya Usoskin (Finland), to mention a few - in fact see the solar system as the main driver of climate change in terms of planetary orbital forces and variations in the rate and type of the sun's "solar wind". Some of these prominent scientists are forecasting imminent drastic cooling based on study of a thousand years of observed cyclical patterns of solar activity and their effect on earth’s climate.

According to several of these experts, the IPCC’s assessment of solar physics is extremely limited, and does not fairly represent the influence of solar variability (in its many forms) on Earth’s climate.

In fact the original mandate of the IPCC was to review and report on the human-causes of climate change. (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22 )

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.”

In 2013, the government of The Netherlands called for numerous changes to the IPCC to include natural factors and provide timely reporting. http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

“The IPCC needs to adjust its principles. We believe that limiting the scope of the IPCC to human induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system, including human-induced climate change. The Netherlands is also of the opinion that the word ‘comprehensive’ may have to be deleted, because producing comprehensive assessments becomes virtually impossible with the ever expanding body of knowledge and IPCC may be more relevant by producing more special reports on topics that are new and controversial.”

7. The present article repeats the story of the science fund and Barry Cooper's involvement at the U of C twice. There is a discrepancy in the dates (one is 2002 and the other is 2005). This is also 'news' from about 7 years ago, yet has page prominence as if this is the only relevant matter about Friends of Science.

Proposed - combine two sections of story under specific headline, delete repetitious content:

Science Research Fund Controversy

8. Dr. James Buckee is mentioned - but no reference is made to the fact that he is an Oxford-trained astrophysicist.

Proposed: Prior to reference to Talisman funding, include something like:

An early supporter and member of Friends of Science was Dr. Jim Buckee, an Oxford-trained astrophysicist. He was also CEO of Talisman Energy.

9. You may wish to include the following facts: Dr. Buckee has also given lectures on how the sun drives climate at leading universities.

10. Recently Dr. Buckee supported the world's largest radio astronomy project at University of Western Australia, International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR).

11. Early work included challenging the Naomi Oreskes "Consensus" essay:

Proposed:

Challenging Naomi Oreskes’ “Consensus” Essay of 2004

Friends of Science Society sent a letter to Naomi Oreskes challenging the claims of her much-cited ‘consensus essay published in Science Magazine. (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full ) Subsequently, in 2006, Friends of Science commissioned Madhav Khandekar to prepare a bibliography of paper’s rebutting the alleged ‘consensus’ view which was sent to Oreskes’ but the group never received a response from her. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=107 )

12. Under "Position" it would be relevant to inform audiences of some publications and references on the topic.

Proposed:

Position

Friends of Science Society’s position is that ‘the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.’ Though not a mainstream view, there is scientific research and evidence, along with numerous peer-reviewed papers that support this position (and researchers noted above). Publications include:

Club du Soleil – list of academic and peer-reviewed papers on the topic: http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

NASA’s publication of the work of solar climate science pioneer John (Jack) Eddy: The Sun, the Earth, and Near-Earth Space: A Guide to the Sun-Earth System - Comprehensive Information on the Effects of Space Weather on Human Life, Climate, Spacecraft http://www.amazon.ca/The-Earth-Near-Earth-Space-Comprehensive-ebook/dp/B00E4PZPUC

An interesting interview with Eddy can be read and heard on the American Institute for Physics site: https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/22910

The Neglected Sun: How the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe Paperback – Sep 15 2013 by Fritz Vahrenholt (Author), Sebastian Luning (Author), Pierre Gosselin (Translator) http://www.amazon.ca/The-Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241 Grand Phases On The Sun: The Case for a Mechanism Responsible for Extended Solar Minima and Maxima http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Phases-The-Sun-Responsible/dp/1466963018/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1396796812&sr=8-3&keywords=Yaskell

13. There is a limited review of Friends of Science activities. Some of them are quite relevant to issues of education, public access to qualified rational, dissenting scientific views on climate change.

Proposed:

In 2012, Friends of Science found that the Alberta Science Teacher’s Journal had published an article entitled “The Role of Educators in Increasing Public Certainty in Climate Change Science” by Stan Bissell that made derogatory marks about their organization, and that also suggested the media should not cover the climate change story in an equitable fashion.

This led Friends of Science researchers to further investigation of the Alberta School Curriculum that revealed a disturbing tendency toward indoctrination, including an exercise in the Grade Five Science Curriculum wherein children are asked to write down how they would argue the case if “your cousin doesn't believe we should be worried about climate change.”

Friends of Science Society has issued various reports and commentaries on proposed climate policies over the years – these are posted on their home page.

Likewise, the group has featured guest speakers on topics of climate science, policy and energy economics over the past 13 years, the videos and power points for which are available on their website.

In descending order the speakers included: Dr. Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist; Dr. Ross McKitrick, economist; Dr. Benny Peiser, climate policy critic; Donna Laframboice, author and investigative journalist; Dr. Ian Plimer, geologist; Dr. John Christy, atmospheric scientist; Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist; Dr. Patrick Michaels, climatologist; Dr. Tim Patterson, geologist; Dr. Chris de Freitas, geologist; Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Dr. Timothy Ball, climatologist.

14. Challenging the ethics of climate science bullying - "NASA Faked the Moon Landing..." A critique

In 2013, two colleagues of Friends of Science published a critique of Stephan Lewandowsky's controversial paper "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" The critique examined ethical aspects of name-calling and referred to Kipling D. Williams view that there is a 'social kiss of death' in ostracizing people. It is the view of the authors that the title of the Lewandowsky paper created a pejorative and popular internet 'meme' that indiscriminately smears any person questioning climate change - even highly qualified scientists. Social psychology post-doc Jose Duarte claims that an analysis of the data reveals that Lewandowsky et al do not have valid data and writes:

"...What do the data say? Well, out of 1145 participants, only 10 believed the moon landing was a hoax (likely including fakes.) We'll pause here to note that 10 in this context is essentially zero, and we couldn't validly infer links between moon hoaxism and anything else from that number. But it's worse – a majority of these 10 reject the idea that climate science is a hoax – 7 out of the 10. Only 3 participants out of 1145 endorsed the moon hoax and the climate science hoax.

The title being wildly false is bad enough, but it's made worse by the fact that it slanders millions of people as believing that the moon landing was a hoax. They don't believe any such thing, according to the authors' own data. Slandering one's participants is a serious ethical breach."

15. There is limited content regarding the controversial billboard campaign which is relevant to Freedom of Speech and Scientific Inquiry.

Proposed:

Controversial Billboard Campaign 2014 and Ad Standards Complaints and Ruling

In January 2014, Friends of Science Society released a report disputing the several consensus studies (Oreskes 2004, Doran & Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010, and Cook 2013). The report claimed the much-cited 97% figure was a ‘social proof’ and that a critical review of the consensus studies showed numerous discrepancies in methods, definitions and claims.

In conjunction with this, the group ran print ads in the Calgary Herald. Upon notice in the press that the World Economic Forum (WEF) was planning a climate change meeting in Banff, Friends of Science ran a digital billboard at the Calgary Airport to welcome the WEF with the Friends of Science message that “The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.” The story was picked up by European weblog Tallbloke Talkshop but otherwise did not stir any media controversy.

In June 2014, the organization ran a larger billboard campaign during the Calgary Stampede. A series of digital billboards dotted the downtown core. One billboard stated that "the sun is the main driver of climate change." This provoked criticism from, among others, Greenpeace, whose request for their own advertisement to appear on an Alberta billboard had been denied by the same company that displayed Friends of Science's ad.[34]

A major controversy broke out in the media over this and a second billboard that showed the Remote Surface Sensing graph illustrating more than 16 years of no global warming trend (based on Remote Surface Sensing monitor data), and the statement “Global Warming Stopped Naturally 16+ Years Ago.” Numerous media covered the billboard story.

Jason Markusoff, a popular reporter for the Calgary Herald tweeted that finally Calgary made it to SLATE magazine – “for a laughably embarssing reasons.”

In the June-July 014 edition of the Alberta Wilderness Association(AWA)journal, a short editorial condemned the Friends of Science billboard. Friends of Science requested a retraction and were denied the opportunity to rebut.Friends of Science protested in the press that this was not in keeping with the principles of a federally registered charity.

In November of 2014, Friends of Science Society began a low-budget, nation-wide digital billboard media campaign in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. This generated a tremendous public outcry in Quebec, numerous articles in the French-speaking press and resulting in some 96 complaints to the Ad Standards Council of Canada, most of which claimed the billboards (French translations of the English messages) violated the Advertising Standards Codes. One student group at UQAM (Universite du Quebec a Montreal) advocated using the Charter of Rights against Friends of Science.

The campaign was panned by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation director John Bennett, in a blog posting that advocated for an email campaign against the media provider as well as Friends of Science Society. The National Post’s Kelly McParland also wrote an op-ed condemning this blog.

Friends of Science Society publicly criticized Sierra Club Canada Foundation for inciting cyber harassment against the media provider, saying this did not appear to be a charitable activity.

In the spring of 2015, after months of deliberation and a thorough review of submissions from complainants and Friends of Science Society, and an initial finding against the Friends of Science Society, the Ad Standards Council found against the organization based on specific sections of the Ad Standards Code - Clauses 1(b), (e) and 8, acknowledging though that “global warming and climate change are caused by the serious effects of the sun as well as carbon dioxide emissions”.

Friends of Science noted in their on-line statement about the ruling that “Regarding the issue of scientific accuracy, it is unreasonable to expect that a billboard message of ~ 7 words could reflect the scope and nuances of climate science – a complex field.” Ad Standards Council is an industry advisory body; the ruling has no legal power.

16. There is no coverage of an important discussion on 'phase-out coal' in Alberta.

Proposed:

Countering the Alberta Phase-Out Coal Campaign

In 2013 the Pembina Institute issued “A Costly Diagnosis: Subsidizing Coal Power with Albertans’ Health” - a report which stated that Albertans could save $300 million in health care costs and save about 100 people a year from premature death due to respiratory conditions, which the report linked to emissions, primarily fine particulate matter (PM2.5 – smaller than 2.5 microns) from Alberta’s coal-fired power plants.

Friends of Science Society reviewed the evidence and issued a rebuttal report in January 2015 entitled “Burning Questions: An Evidence-based Review of the Alberta Phase-out Coal Campaign.”

Friends of Science claims that Pembina Institute has exaggerated the risks of coal-fired power plants citing Environment Canada statistics that coal-fired power plants emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 emissions in 2011 while residential fireplaces emitted double that, and wildfires emitted ~1,000 times that amount.

17. There is no reference to Friends of Science review of two major climate change reports.

Proposed:

In the spring of 2015 the Ontario provincial government launched a climate change policy discussion site and policy paper. Friends of Science Society issued a rebuttal paper entitled: "Ideology or Evidence."

In April of 2015 Friends of Science Society issued a report that challenged the premises of "Acting on Climate Change" - a report issued under the auspices of the McGill/Trottier Institute and which claimed to have the support of some 70 scholars across Canada. A central proposition of the report was that Canada could operate a national wind/hydro grid by 2035. Friends of Science report - "Reality vs. Climate Change Uncertainties" found this plan to be infeasible and noted a paucity of relevant power generation/engineers associated with "Acting on Climate Change".

References

---

I hope you will consider some of these offerings. Thank you - feel free to ask any questions. Mbark2 Mbark2 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Much of this seems counter to WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, which insists that we treat topics from the point of view of the mainstream scientific consensus, and WP:RS, which insists that all material be covered in reliably published sources, preferably written and published by people independent of the subject. In particular, your points (1-7) have no source; your points (2) and (6) appears to be attempting to build the false impression that large numbers of climate scientists hold your position, and in addition (6) appears to be claiming association with people who are unlikely to agree, and we would need sources for each one's affiliation with FoS; points (4), (10), and (11) report certain activities devoid of any context that would let readers determine their significance; point (15) seems less like encyclopedic writing and more an excuse to copy-and-paste a long fringe screed into the article, etc. In short, it doesn't seem to be a very constructive collection of suggestions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. What I see is a lot of WP:POV and sales-brochure speak. The overall tone is not encyclopedic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello David Eppstein and Winkelvi - I was not under the impression that you would accept my proposed edits as is - but rather review and incorporate/rewrite according to your Wikipedia 'more neutral tone.' I would say the present article is certainly not neutral. A few of the previous editors in comments above (Tyndanu, Childsend, and others) consider the existing article to be biased, one said it is almost defamatory, one said it focuses solely on the funding story, another said it could be called 'criticism of Friends of Science' - while another considers Friends of Science to be 'nutters.' Your own editorial people say this of the existing article.

To me that says you need some real content.

David - re: your comment on the scientists we quoted:

I do not think that me citing a handful of scientists who do work in solar physics and whose work Friends of Science reviews and follows constitutes an attempt to claim association with people who are "unlikely to agree."

We just hosted Dr. Nir Shaviv in Calgary on June 2, 2015 at the Red and White club to a sold-out audience and he spoke on the "Solar forcing and our understanding of past and future climate change." He totally agrees with our perspective (actually more that we agree with him - he is the senior scientist). He is a noted scholar who just spent a year at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study and is an IBM Einstein Fellow and is a full professor at of physics at the Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

I'm presently editing a 1 hr presentation of his which will be posted on the web with our other speaker videos.

If the page is about what we do and who we work with - why would this not be valid information for readers? It can be presented as fact - not rah rah.

The existing page says almost nothing about what Friends of Science actually does or whose work we review - giving a false impression.

RE: Dr. Shaviv:

He says: "The biggest difference between my claims and the IPCC is not whether humans are responsible for some or most of the warming, instead it is climate sensitivity. Whereas the IPCC claims that it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, I claim, based on empirical evidence, that it is around 1 to 1.5°C."

He has collaborated with Henrik Svensmark so it seems we also share a common perspective on the sun. I know our co-founder is in personal contact with a number of the other scientists listed - would you like me to get confirming statements from them?

Gentlemen - why don't you ask and instead of assume?

I find it odd that in your role as editors you assume that Friends of Science Society is citing association with people 'who are unlikely to agree' - rather than asking me/us that question - "Do you have any formal association with these scientists; if so what it is?"

If Wikipedia is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia of valid information and neutral content, then wouldn't it be most appropriate to ask? The fact that we follow their work does not imply they have a formal association with them either - but if you want some proof, I will go and get it for you.

Item 4) establishes our early scientific position and that it was discussed and published in the leading professional journal - in fact it was solicited by that journal, which serves the largest concentration of professional engineers and geoscientists in the world (I believe), certainly the largest concentration in Canada. Geoscientists - geologists and geophysicists are also trained in climate related subjects (to greater and lesser degrees, depending on their specialization. Likewise engineers work with the physical sciences and all of these use models - so they arer very capable of assessing whether modelled predictions are reasonable or not and they also have (the geoscientists) the long-term paleo-climatology to rely on to compare to contemporary predictions.

The relevance of Item 10) is that Dr. Buckee is still associated with solar science research, as he was when he began his early association with Friends of Science.

Item 11) is relevant because the original concept of 'consensus' on climate change appears to have originated from Oreskes' study, when this concept is foreign to scientific inquiry - yet it has blossomed into a large, self-driving enterprise. If you care to review our report deconstructing the claimed consensus it is at

Regarding 15) perhaps there needs to be more context - in Canada the Charter of Rights is supposed to protect Freedom of Speech - the Ad Standards complaints incident appeared to be a concerted effort to prevent Friends of Science from presenting our point of view, and some people (like the UQAM group) carried it to an extreme. Likewise, environmental groups who get charitable tax status from ALL taxpayers, began a vindictive campaign against a legitimate business - the billboard provider.

If you read any historical account in any other encyclopedia, I am quite sure you would find references to seemingly ordinary (at first) sequence of events that curiously turned into something else. For instance: https://www.stalbanscathedral.org/history/the-road-to-magna-carta/ Laugh you may at this comparison, but are you aware that in the US, the Obama campaign is running a 'call out the deniers' web page with every republican labelled as such. This does not seem to represent the home of the 'free and the brave' - though it may be effective politics.

There certainly is a mainstream view on climate change - but that does not mean there cannot be new information about related but different views on climate change. The Solar Dynamics Observatory has only been up for 5 years - and we are getting lots more empirical data on how the sun changes and affects climate from that and from the numerous solar-terrestrial scientific groups working in the world (which are not party to the IPCC).

I'll go get some references and I hope you reconsider.

Thank you,

Mbark2 Mbark2 (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as editing the article to include your suggestions, Mbark2, you have an account, you are welcome to make the changes yourself (see WP:Just do it for more). My suggestion is that you edit in small chunks, as what you are proposing is a lot of new content. Expect what you add, however, to be edited by others. My advice is that when others edit what you have added/changed/removed, do not be offended and remember what is placed at the top of every editing page: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Winkelvi but...I thought as a person with a COI I was not supposed to edit material so close to me?

I'm willing to try.

If you look at the complete and neutral/objective description of the IPCC and what it does - which is what Friends of Science also does (climate science literature review) - you will see that the Friends page is missing a lot - as I pointed out above.

I noticed in the notes on reverting that people should not revert things just because they don't like the content; if it improves the page and meets the guidelines, then it should stay. We'll see how that works out. Thanks for the tips. Mbark270.75.9.82 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things first: please be sure to log in when you comment/edit in the future; please indent your comments in response to others using ":" (a colon). Yes, it's true you aren't supposed to edit in a manner showing conflict of interest, but if you are able to edit leaving out COI, you should be fine. It's a fine line, but it can be done. My concern now is that with this latest comment from you, Mbark2, that you are admitting your edit proposals are not only COI-laden but POV? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Closing this edit request. Clearly no consensus has been reached. Altamel (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cspg.org/CSPG_Climate_Change_Backgrounder.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/guests/macrae.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0674089227

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cspg.org/CSPG_Climate_Change_Backgrounder.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402110349/http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html to http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108112401/http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3c955256-f327-465a-8135-778088f6131a to http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3c955256-f327-465a-8135-778088f6131a
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=fdc3b6fd-ca3e-454d-9894-f9894a0ef4dd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Upate as of 2021

Friends of Science is a volunteer-run organization based in Calgary, Alberta. It is interested in the discussion of Climate Change based on science. It's members freely agree with the concept of Climate Change. In fact the world's climate is very dynamic and it is always in a state of change. However, Friends of Science does challenge the concept that CO 2 is the bogeyman that is the main cause of the warming of our atmosphere.

Contrary to what is written above in the Wikipedia forum, Friends of Science is supported by individuals, most of whom are residents of Canada. It has an active paid membership of approximately 400 individuals. It's Financial Statements are posted to its website.

It's information may not be in agreement with the views held by majority of the public. However, the facts presented on the website are based on science. Contrary to general views held, many scientists strongly disagree with the the Summary Reports of the IPCC. 97 % of scientists will agree with the statement that our climate is changing. 97% of scientists do not agree that human activity and CO 2 are the main causes of Climate Change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.33.14 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This is bullshit, and it does not belong here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article.

The forum where you can spread pseudoscientific propaganda is somewhere else on the internet. Or on public bathroom doors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)